PDA

View Full Version : Bill Gate's Value



csinclair83
20-09-2003, 06:56 PM
Microsoft Corp co-founder Bill Gates, worth $US46 billion topped a list of the 400 richest people in the United States, published by Forbes magazine.

It was the 10th year in a row in which Gates, the 47-year-old chairman of Microsoft, topped the rankings of the richest people in the United States, compiled by the business magazine.

His fortune increased by $US3 billion over the past year, according to Forbes.

Warren Buffett, 73, chairman of the Berkshire Hathaway investment group, was second on the list with a fortune of $US36 billion. Ranked third was Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, 50, with a total net worth of $US22 billion.

The next five slots were held by members of the Walton family, owners of Wal-Mart, the world's largest retail store chain, with a net worth of $US20.5 billion each.

In ninth position was Oracle Corp chairman Lawrence Ellison, 59, with a fortune of $US18 billion. Rounding out the top 10 was Dell Inc chief Michael Dell, 38, with a net worth of $US13 billion.

Forbes said that after declining for the past two years, the aggregate net worth of the wealthiest 400 US citizens rose 10% in the past year to $US955 billion.

Jeff Bezos, 39, of Amazon.com was among the US millionaires who posted the biggest gains in net worth over the past year, Forbes said. His net worth rose more than $US3 billion to $US5.1 billion. Bezos ranked 32nd on the Forbes 400 list.

Other notable members of the Forbes 400 include News Corp's Rupert Murdoch, 72, 27th on the list, with a net worth of $US7.2 billion and New York mayor and Bloomberg LP founder Michael Bloomberg, 61, 36th on the list with a net worth of $US4.9 billion ($A7.4 billion).

Filmmaker Steven Spielberg, 56, and New York real estate mogul Donald Trump, 57, were tied for 71st spot on the list with fortunes estimated at $US2.5 billion each.

Tied for 78th place with fortunes worth $US2.3 billion each were Apple Computer's Steve Jobs, 48, fashiondesigner Ralph Lauren, 64, and CNN founder Ted Turner, 64.






Makes me wonder..why cant they even donate some of that to poor countries..or even sponsor the kingz..they looking for $500-600 thousand...
and none of these would break his bank.....whats he gonna do with all that money?

and thats definately a unbeleiveable bank account he would have...

metla
20-09-2003, 07:06 PM
I think you will find(if you looked)that Bill donates huge amounts of money to many causes,And the sooner the Kingz are disbanded the better,i dont agree with rewarding bad management.

Baldy
20-09-2003, 07:40 PM
> I think you will find(if you looked)that Bill donates
> huge amounts of money to many causes,And the sooner
> the Kingz are disbanded the better,i dont agree with
> rewarding bad management.


Hear Hear Metla. Yes Bill Gates donates a huge amount of dosh

Thomas
20-09-2003, 09:55 PM
And who are the Kingz?,no don't tell me.

csinclair83
21-09-2003, 12:52 AM
kingz..are the so called professional football team in the aussie league
like the warriors are in the nrl..

robsonde
21-09-2003, 01:42 AM
I read somewhere that bill donates more to medical research each year than the US goverment does.

Dolby Digital
21-09-2003, 11:09 AM
>>I think you will find(if you looked)that Bill donates huge amounts of money to many causes
What a nice bloke. He can afford too and it gives him a few brownie points in the process. Whats a few million when you are worth billions.

Mike
21-09-2003, 11:13 AM
> and none of these would break his bank.....whats he
> gonna do with all that money?

I think you'll find that most of these guys don't have that much money in the bank (okay okay yeah they have HEAPS in the bank) - most of their money is in unspendable investments/shares/properties etc. and not in cash. This is why their net worth changes so much every year - if the property values decline or their share values drop then so does their net worth. If it were all just money in the bank then it'll be increasing every year.

Mike.

Harry_H
21-09-2003, 11:18 AM
apart from a few million for his kids, he's giving it all away when he "retires". Check out http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm for just how much he is doing.

Baldy
21-09-2003, 11:50 AM
People should be more concerned about the "value" of American Pentecostal churches, and those Auckland Polynesian churches - taking all that Tythe money of the people who can't afford it!!!!!
Nothing to do with Bill Gates I know, but just had to get it off my chest, while we were talking about $Billions

Terry Porritt
21-09-2003, 11:55 AM
Just be thankful that Bill has not got around to realizing that he could buy up the whole of New Zealand if he wanted to.
It's what the New Right would call market forces.

John H
21-09-2003, 12:08 PM
I am a bit bemused by this thread, for two reasons.

First, the thread is called "Bill Gate's Value"; quite unintentionally I am sure. The word "value" connotes some actual worth, whereas the thread is about how much money he has accumulated which is another thing entirely. The latter gives no indication of his value to the world, or to anyone else really. It is a bit like saying Theresa Gattung "earned" $1m last year, when in fact she was merely paid that sum - as I have observed in another thread, no-one actually earns that kind of sum of money; they just have the power to demand that level of salary from plonkers who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Secondly, when people talk about Gates giving away "his" money to worthy causes, there is no analysis at all; merely acceptance that this is a "good thing". Think about it people - that is YOUR money he is giving away. He got it from plonkers like you and me through the price gouging policies of Microsoft. It is like an involuntary tax really. He takes it from us like the government does, and when he "gives it away" to charities of HIS choice, like US hospitals, it means that you and I are subsidising the Amerikan taxpayer.

Normally we have choice about what we give to worthy causes. Are you happy that one wealthy Amerikan not only takes more of your money than his company needs to make a decent profit, but also that he is the sole arbiter of which causes are worthy and which are unworthy? And of course he no doubt gets a huge tax break from his "donations" to boot.

Such are the mysteries of capitalism and our blind acceptance of the monetary system we live under.

I give you these two cents for nought...

John

Baldy
21-09-2003, 12:43 PM
> Secondly, when people talk about Gates giving away
> "his" money to worthy causes, there is no analysis at
> all; merely acceptance that this is a "good thing".
> Think about it people - that is YOUR money he is
> giving away. He got it from plonkers like you and me
> through the price gouging policies of Microsoft. It
> is like an involuntary tax really. He takes it from
> us like the government does, and when he "gives it
> away" to charities of HIS choice, like US hospitals,
> it means that you and I are subsidising the American
> taxpayer.
>

Spoken like a true socialist...... Whether you like it or not John, everything costs. So it was our money that he got rich from - so what. That doesn't mean that he has no right to it. Actually, he earned the money by selling a service/product. Are you saying that when you go to work, you have no right to the money you earned and you should seek permission from your employer everytime you want to buy something BECAUSE you are buying something with the money he paid you?
The sooner that people learn that once money changes hands for a service, then its no longer theirs.
Next you are going to tell us that when you read a book and gain knowledge from it, the author owns that part of your brain because it was his words that you learned from.


> I give you these two cents for nought...
>
> John

Its a pity we can't spend the two cents John, but there is no such coin anymore

Dolby Digital
21-09-2003, 01:33 PM
>>Actually, he earned the money by selling a service/product.
Bugger, he missed out on the Munich City authorities deal... but thats healthy competition ;\

John H
21-09-2003, 01:48 PM
>Spoken like a true socialist......

Oh no! Pigeon holed again! Why does "socialist" sound like an insult instead of a badge of honour when used like this?

I am proud to hold socialist values - its time will come again (or something else devised to restore equity in society) when enough people understand and resist the current market place insanity.

>That doesn't mean that he has no right to it. Actually, he earned the money by selling a service/product.

Two more fallacies. What is the "right" that he has to this money, and who determines that right? Is that a Christian value for example, reinforced by Biblical principles? Funny that I haven't found that "right" in the Bible, or UN Declarations of rights, for example... I wonder if this "right" is in the Koran? I doubt it somehow. Secondly, the use of that word "earned" again without analysis. He didn't earn it, no more than a usurer earns a high interest rate on money lent to someone who has no other source of funds, or one of our current CEO "earns" their obscene salaries.

And in case it tempts anyone, please don't get on to the usual "you're jealous of success and wealth" kick so beloved of the New Right and BRT. I just think what useful purpose four fifths of Theresa Gattung's salary could be put to if it wasn't being spent on her. I think of the lower costs each of us would have to pay if these obscene salaries and profits were removed from companies' cost structures. We would all be better off if we weren't supporting these CEO parasites.

I am self employed (kind of like Gates really, but on a different scale), and have been for ten years after 26 years in the public service. Like you Baldy, I have to live in this seriously stuffed capitalist system . Unlike you (I am guessing here from your post), it doesn't follow that I have to buy into its principles.

Oh, and sorry about the two cents... Inflation rules. Not OK.

johnboy
21-09-2003, 01:59 PM
http://www.quuxuum.org/~evan/bgnw.html

Thomas
21-09-2003, 07:08 PM
Perhaps the all knowing one can explain why there two distinct schools of thought,the socialist,one who thinks we should live off the backs of others and the capitalist,one who thinks we should be responsible for our own actions,and never the twain shall meet.

Terry Porritt
21-09-2003, 09:02 PM
How can I not resist the temptation Thomas, to confess to be all knowing :)

I prefer the concept of mutual support rather than "socialism", but it was a kind of socialism way back in prehistoric times, or mutual support if you like, that enabled tribes to be social, coherent and survive, whereas individuals would not have been able to.

Capitalism can only lead logically to anarchy where it is everyone for themselves. We are in fact seeing that developing in society world-wide now. Criminals have learnt a lot from from their capitalist mentors !
Years ago capitalism flourished on the backs of exploited resources in far off lands populated by ignorant wogs, or subjugated races.

Those cheap resources are no longer available for free.

It is interesting to note that as the worlds population explodes and some form of social control is vital if the human race is to survive, that we have entered a New Right era of exploitation.

Here endeth my views.

Mike
21-09-2003, 09:44 PM
> >>Actually, he earned the money by selling a
> service/product.
> Bugger, he missed out on the Munich City authorities
> deal... but thats healthy competition ;\

Ah not quite :p

From a site I occasionally visit:

Linux desktops in Munich wil run Windows in VMWARE...
Remember that story about the city of Munich choosing Linux to power 14,000 desktop computers? One aspect of this story that most people don't know about is that up to 80 percent of those Linux desktops will be equipped with VMWare, a virtual machine emulator, under which they will run Windows and Windows applications. That's right, folks: The majority of those "Linux desktops" will be used to run Windows. I'm not a big fan of Gartner, but they've issued a report, correctly titled, "Munich's Choice Doesn't Prove Linux OK for General Desktop Use," that raises some interesting issues. First, many of the Windows desktops they're migrated are very old Windows versions like Windows 3.1, making the switch to Linux less painful (it would be equally painful to switch to XP). Gartner says the cost of switching to Linux will cost 30 million Euros, or 3 million Euros more than it would cost to switch to XP, not including any steep discounts Microsoft would have no doubt provided. And finally, because most of the Linux machines will use VMWare to run Windows anyway, Linux is really being used as a hosting environment, and not as a replacement. In other words, this isn't exactly a good business case on which other companies can base a decision to migrate to Windows desktops. And, not coincidentally, that's why we're not reading about a lot of other high-profile Linux switchers.

Mike.

Thomas
21-09-2003, 09:48 PM
Thank you all knowing one;)

Though I don't think you answered the question,why one is usually in one camp or the other,we know which one you are in for example.

You say capitalism leads to chaos,where does socialism lead?Look at Cuba and Russia.

Terry Porritt
21-09-2003, 10:00 PM
Fazackerly Thomas, it's matter of extremes, and a far from perfect human race. Extreme capitalism and free for all will lead to anarchy where those who value individualism may have to hire mercenaries to protect their wealth. Extreme socialism with dictatorship thrown in will lead to the Russian oppressive experiment with millions slaughtered by little father Stalin and his henchmen. (Though it did last for a fairly long time).

Im not against a benevolent form of capitalism, but I much prefer mutual support in society, honesty in business etc.
Witness all the SAR volunteers and non-SAR people that turned out in the Wairarapa to search.

On the other hand I wouldnt mind being paid US$140 million pa to be chairman of the NY Stock Exchange :)

Mike
21-09-2003, 10:24 PM
> On the other hand I wouldnt mind being paid US$140
> million pa to be chairman of the NY Stock Exchange
> :)

While Alan Greenspan is "only" paid US$166,700 ?:|

Mike.

Holy Cow
22-09-2003, 07:34 AM
> > On the other hand I wouldnt mind being paid US$140
> > million pa to be chairman of the NY Stock Exchange
> > :)
>
> While Alan Greenspan is "only" paid US$166,700 ?:|
>
> Mike.


Thats less thab the head of the Elim Church

Thomas
22-09-2003, 07:51 AM
You are mixing human nature with economics I think Te.
What kind of society isn't structured on greed? The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm; capitalism is that kind of system.

Terry Porritt
22-09-2003, 08:46 AM
It just isnt possible to departmentalise or separate human behaviour, thinking, and nature from social systems or disciplines like economics as though they existed in isolation from one another, though it is a human trait to try to do so in order to simplify thought processes, otherwise it is all too complex.

A crude analogy would be in electrical theory where we try to simplify things by thinking of lumped parameters like 'a capacitance', 'a resistance', 'an inductance', whereas we all know that such things dont exist in practice as pure entities, and as the frequency rises they become more and more blurry.

Dolby Digital
22-09-2003, 09:55 AM
Just someone's opinion. They might have chosen Wine instead (except its too unstable) :(

At the end of the day, Bill lost some revenue (which is insignificant in the great scheme of things). It probably would have been easier for Munich to go with XP but they chose not to (Suse is a Germany company too!).

segfault
22-09-2003, 11:52 AM
> [i]Linux desktops in Munich wil run Windows in
> VMWARE...
> Remember that story about the city of Munich choosing
> Linux to power 14,000 desktop computers?

<snip>

I would suggest that VMware is being used as a stepping stone while Munich coverts fully to Linux. I personally view the cost of VMware licenses as a one off cost in doing this. This may have a short term cost, but I think it will have good long term benefits.

mark c
22-09-2003, 01:21 PM
Those who say we are fundamentally greedy creatures contradict themselves all the time. Those who amass great wealth are constantly ( and conspicuously) seen giving dosh away to bring themselves back into the fold, knowing we are sociable and interactive creatures. We need each other more than a heap of 'things', and it is our relations with other people which ultimately determines our happiness or not.

Remember the story of King Midas, and Dunkirk and Featherston.

We are in a kind of 'push-pull' situation, where, yes. we do have to make efforts to provide for ourselves, (Capitalism some would say, but no contradiction with socialism there) but also we want to help our families, friends, and communities.

The idea of 'giving something back' is well entrenched in our culture, those who don't get isoltaed and considered as selfish at best and anal retentive at worst and no-one likes being called that.

So M. Thatcher's dictum that 'there is no such thing as community , just aggregtions of self-interested individuls' is nonsense, and those who adhere to it, unless they really are an isolated king midas type, are self-contradictory.
My 5c's worth

(Wouldn't want to get caught in a currency dispute. :D

Thomas
22-09-2003, 02:44 PM
>It just isnt possible to departmentalise or separate human behaviour, >thinking, and nature from social systems or disciplines like economics as >though they existed in isolation from one another.

Indeed it is not,the question is which system gives us liberty and there can be no doubt about that.

oggy
23-09-2003, 10:34 AM
Saw a wonderful quote a few weeks back that may put a new perspective on this:
" Ahh, if Bill Gates had a dollar for every time that 'Windows' has crashed... oh that's right...he does."

neptune
23-09-2003, 01:13 PM
Dont really care if Mr gates sponsors Kings or All Blacks! :D

All i ask Mr gates is to setup a R&D or just expand its operations in NZ creating 1000 odd jobs. It would certainly help us IT graduates who have such a hard time getting a job. Even the janitors at MS in redmond get a decent income!!

Hope Mr gates gets to read this thread somehow :D :D

csinclair83
23-09-2003, 02:17 PM
i take back my negative comments about bill gates..like why doesnt he give money to who and who
after hearing the news last night...$200+ million to malaria causes in africe on his trip there...
seems like a rich man does have a nice heart afterall...

segfault
23-09-2003, 02:53 PM
I don't claim to know much about this subject, but as far as I'm aware, Bill gets a nice big tax deduction for his donations. I personally don't believe he is as generous as he likes us to think.

Chilling_Silently
23-09-2003, 03:27 PM
> " Ahh, if Bill Gates had a dollar for every time that
> 'Windows' has crashed... oh that's right...he does."

LMAO! That's good!

Ahh... You've put a smile on my dial for the day!

*Clicks* I s'pose ya can turn that around and make it about Linux too.. RedHat are only just turning over a profit ;-)

-=JM=-
23-09-2003, 04:56 PM
> *Clicks* I s'pose ya can turn that around and make it
> about Linux too.. RedHat are only just turning over a
> profit ;-)

I was sure I just saw that they'd made a profit of $NZ5.7m in the last quarter. That is still quite a lot of crashes IMO.

Chilling_Silently
23-09-2003, 09:08 PM
Okay... So what about Mandrakesoft ;-)

Mike
26-09-2003, 09:03 PM
> I don't claim to know much about this subject, but as
> far as I'm aware, Bill gets a nice big tax deduction
> for his donations. I personally don't believe he is
> as generous as he likes us to think.

If it works anything like it does in NZ, you get the tax that was paid on the donated money back - if he didn't donate the money, he wouldn't "need" any of it back - it's not making him richer by donating. $200m donation is still huge, and that's a very generous donation. How can you sit there and say that someone isn't as generous as he likes us to think when he's donating more money than most of us will ever see in our lives... possibly combined :D

Mike.

Thomas
26-09-2003, 09:36 PM
Very true Mike very true.

smashedlittlebugger
27-09-2003, 11:19 PM
He's got more than enough to lead a good life. He should keep enough to keep himself stable for the rest of his life and donate the rest to good causes. Anyway, what he should be pouring all that money into is making Microsoft a good company. THE WHOLE MICROSOFT FRANCHISE IS AS CORRUPT AS STALIN!

Chris Randal
29-09-2003, 10:59 AM
And he still can't find a programmer to make Windows work properly....